I’ve been reading in many places that Brazil is a nation that many people would like to see added to the game, and for that reason I would like to add some of my ideas as to to how the Amazon would be handled in it; after all, wouldn’t be Brazil without an ability to destroy the world’s largest rainforest, would it?
More precisely, I would like to see the Amazon handled in a simulation – Amazon rainforest area, or something like that, with max being how much the Amazon rainforest used to cover and the lowest being no Amazon rainforest, or something like that. Of course, it will be very hard to make it increase, but I have some ideas for existing policies, nation-specific policies and some that aren’t in the game yet but should be.
Some of the existing policies and simulations that should affect the Amazon’s coverage should be:
- Reforestation (increases it, for obvious reasons)
- Agricultural subsidies (farming, especially cattle farming, contributes towards the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and should decrease its area)
- Plant-based diets should increase the Amazon’s area (reduces land use for cattle farming)
- Pollution controls should also increase it (again, should be obvious)
- Rare Earth mining decreases it (provides incentives to mine the Amazon, not good to preserve it)
- High number of farmers decreases it (see above, lower change as plant based diets increase)
- I guess trade tariffs could moderately decrease it (sanctions on foreign food causes people to buy local?)
- High global temperature increases wildfires and burns down more of the Amazon, decreasing its size
- Road building and rail will necessitate removing some of the Amazon, and decrease it (though road building could do it more bc of towns along the way)
There are probably some other policies and simulations that could affect it, but I’m not sure which ones should. As for the Brazil-specific policies that can affect it:
- Amazon policy, with one side being pro-Amazon and other side being pro-business. Pro-Amazon pisses off farmers, increases Amazon size and environment, pleases environmentalists and lowers GDP. Pro-business angers environmentalists, increases GDP, lowers Amazon size and pleases farmers, with farmer membership increasing/decreasing depending on how much protection the Amazon has.
- Ditto for native peoples, from legal protections for non-intervention and avoiding /criminalising contact with Amazonian tribes to the government taking the official stance of “eeh, who cares?”. Same as above but Liberals get to have an opinion too.
As for policies that should be added that would also affect the Amazon:
- Ecotourism subsidies, where the government subsidises ecotourism. This increases tourism, the environment, Amazon cover (in Brazil) and Capitalist support (as you’re giving economic incentives to protect the environment). Pretty sure the tourism should cover the GDP growth but you can add that too if you want to. It also reduces unemployment
- Park rangers– slightly reduces unemployment, protects the environment and the Amazon rainforest. Environmentalists are in favour.
- National park policy (another unremovable slider lol), with higher favouring many national parks (higher environment, environmentalists, Amazon, farmers and capitalists are against, lowers GDP from less exploitation of resources), and lower favouring little to no national parks (basically the reverse of before). Tourism should also increase slightly.
However, we’ll also need to discuss what the Amazon will do if you protect it … or not. High Amazon cover will increase environment, lower carbon emissions, make environmentalists like you more and improve foreign relations (just look at how angry the EU was at Brazil for not protecting the Amazon for example). Very high Amazon cover will make the rainforest thrive in its past natural beauty, in the Thriving Amazon situation, which should accentuate the previous effects, as well as stabilising the local climate (not sure how to model this. Maybe a slight reduction in food prices? Though many of the effects of protecting the Amazon would increase food prices due to a reduction in supply – should’ve mentioned that earlier). If it goes too low, you get a lower environment, increasing co2 emissions (which by the way have actually become a thing. Well done humanity), and making environmentalists angry, as well as harming foreign relations. Also, plants in the Amazon are used to discover and invent new medicines, so maybe it could increase health and technology (maybe? Not sure.)
If you get it too low, you get the dying Amazon event, which makes environmentalists very unhappy and starts, slowly, to reduce the Amazon’s coverage over time (rainforests make their own rain; less rain, less rainforest, and repeat). Now, this can be stopped if you immediately protect the Amazon rainforest as much as you can, but let’s say you don’t. In that case, the Amazon rainforest converts into becoming the Amazon Savannah.
You’ve really done it now. Congratulations. The Amazon rainforest is no longer a thing, and the climate of northern Brazil is completely different in ways I’m not sure humanity knows about yet. Either way, it’s not good for humanity. -500% (or something ridiculous like that) to Amazon rainforest coverage because it doesn’t exist anymore. Food prices increase dramatically, farmers hate you for letting them burn down the Amazon rainforest (how dare you), environmentalists are probably off creating their own terrorist organisation and spreading propaganda (rightfully so) that you are terrible and everybody should be environmentalist, and the international community now wants to dismember Brazil. CO2 emissions also spike from destroying the world’s (once) largest rainforest and the environment takes a big nosedive. Good luck recovering from that.